Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 14:41 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>On 2/23/06, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
>>there are some things that you aren't considering...
>>1 - Red Hat isn't required to put all their SRPM's on the net - free for
>>download, they only need to provide the SRPM's to purchasers and that
>>could be via other methods...it's simply the method that they are
>Thanks, Craig, for your insight. This here is something I'll have to
>give some thought to, and could very well change my opinion. In
>essence, by doing this, Red Hat Software is saying, "here's our source
>code. If you want to rebuild RHEL, knock yourselves out." This is
>the only counterpoint I've seen posted here that I feel has some
>weight worth considering.
Now stacking on this thought - Red Hat actually does derive benefits
from putting the source code out and people 're-packaging' or
- more users, identify, report and sometimes offer bug fixes
- more users who are hell bent on using 'Free as in beer' Linux
distributions that become familiar with the 'Red Hat' way as opposed to
- larger user base of overall packaging methodology motivates
'proprietary' software vendors to develop packaging for RHEL packaging.
Which brings me to one more question that no one has asked:
Is Red Hat even interested in anyone "defending" its "intellectual
property" as some here have chosen to do?
Don't any of Red Hat's "defenders" think they ought to check with Red